Re: request for help

[Carlos Morgado <chbm chbm nu>]

On 2001.08.21 10:20:46 +0100 Brian Stafford wrote:
> On Tue, 21 August 09:58 Carlos Morgado wrote:
> > 
> > On 2001.08.20 20:07:58 +0100 christophe barbe wrote:
> > > I've attached to this mail a patch which is supposed to add an option in
> > > the preferences dialogbox.
> > > This option, ignore the badly choosen name (I'm going to find a better
> > > one), ask for a program to set the X_Operating-System field in outgoing
> > > mail and offer a preview.
> > > This is something that is available with MUTT and I like that because
> it's
> > > a way to advertise your favorite OS.
> > 
> > Actually, iirc, mutt lets you specify headers to your hearts desire. Maybe
> 
> > this would be a neat thing to have ?
> 
> Mail headers are more for processing by the MUA rather than for human
> consumption.  Arbitrary headers, IMO, are a Bad Thing.  At best they add
> little if no value at all.  If present at all, they should be used in
> moderation
> and always start with "X-".
> 
pretty much what i had in mind. mutt lets your add free form headers, i was
thinking prepending X- to everything

> If information placed in headers is intended for human use, it is better off
> in the message body, not the headers.  (M$ Outlook* goes out of its way to
> stop
> users seeing the headers; most punters dont even know they exist.)
> 
Don't spoil some peoples fun :)

> I feel effort would be better directed at implementing better support for
> headers that exist.  Eg the List-* headers described in RFC 2369.  Using the
> List-Post: header when replying to messages from lists would be dead useful
> and certainly better than trying to guess what to do from the From:, Sender:
> and Reply-To: headers.
> 
humm  .. true. "Reply to all" is somewhat stupid atm .\

-- 
Carlos Morgado - chbm(at)chbm(dot)nu - http://chbm.nu/ -- gpgkey: 0x1FC57F0A
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ FP:0A27 35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A
Software is like sex; it's better when it's free. - Linus Torvalds